1 2026:CGHC:18595-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1238 of 2026 M/s V K Gupta And Associates Engineers And Contractors Through- Mr. Vinay Gupta Aged About 58 Years S/o Shri J.C. Gupta Managing Partner Having Its Office At Sco - 03, 1st And Ii Floor Sector- 16, Panchkula- 134108 (Haryana) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary Public Works Department (PWD) Mantralaya Mahanandi Bhawan Atal Nagar Raipur Chhattsgarh E-Mail ps. Pwd Cg @ Gov.In 2. Enginner In Chief Public Works Department Nirman Bhawan Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh E. Mail Eine.Pwd.Cg.@Gov.In 3. Chief Engineer Public Works Department Bridge Zone Raipur Chhattisgarh E.Mail. Cebr.Raipur@Gov. In. ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sharad Mishra and Mr. Sudhanshu Upadhyay, Advocates. For Respondent/State : Mr. Praveen Das, Additional Advocate General. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.04.23 17:52:06 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 23.04.2026 1. Heard Mr. Sharad Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, along with Mr. Sudhanshu Upadhyay, learned counsel. Also heard Mr. Praveen Das, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “(i) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the present writ petition and direct the respondent to produce entire records of the present case. (ii) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction to the respondents more particularly the one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari thereby setting aside by the impugned communication dated 24.02.2026 and 25.02.2026 whereby the petitioner’s technical bid has been rejected/disqualified. (iii) That the Hon’ble Court may be kind enough to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction to the respondents more particularly writ of mandamus thereby directing the respondents to evaluate the technical bid of the petitioner keeping in view the 3 unconditional undertaking of the petitioner that it will not deviate with the tender conditions. (iv) That this Hon’ble Court may be kind enough to issue ad interim stay against the opening of the financial bid of the other bidders during the pending of the present writ petition. (v) That, any other order/relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, proper and just in the facts and circumstances of the present case may also kindly be awarded to the petitioner in the ends of justice & equity. (vi) That, the cost of the petition may kindly also be awarded to the petitioner.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a duly constituted partnership firm engaged in the execution of infrastructure and civil construction projects and has successfully completed several projects of similar nature and magnitude. The petitioner, being a legally recognized business entity carrying on its operations within India, is entitled to the protection of its fundamental, constitutional, and legal rights, including the right to fair, transparent, and non-arbitrary treatment in public procurement processes. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner that respondent No. 2 floated an e-tender dated 16.12.2025 for the work of “Construction of Flyover from Guru Teg Bahadur Udyan to Neta Ji Chowk/Guru Nanak Chowk on G.E. Road, Raipur on Lump Sum Basis (Form-F)”, having a probable contract value of Rs. 15,469.23 lakhs and a stipulated completion period of 20 months. The petitioner, being fully 4 eligible and technically competent, participated in the said tender process and submitted its bid in accordance with the prescribed procedure and within the stipulated time. He also submits that as per Clause (f) of the tender document read with Amendment No. 1 and Annexure ‘N’, Clause 30, the bidders were expressly provided with two alternative options, namely: (i) to submit consent to the Departmental GAD, or (ii) to submit an Alternate GAD. The petitioner, in bona fide exercise of the said option explicitly provided under the tender conditions, submitted an Alternate GAD along with its bid. It is submitted that such submission was fully permissible and strictly within the framework of the tender, and therefore, could not be treated as a deviation or non-compliance with the tender conditions. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that respondent No. 3 issued a communication dated 12.02.2026, calling upon the petitioner to furnish an explanation within two working days, alleging that: (i) the pier width indicated in the Alternate GAD exceeded the prescribed limit of 3.0 meters, and (ii) the formation level was shown beyond the permissible limit (260 mm as per Annexure ‘N’), whereas the submitted design reflected a higher value. He also learned counsel submits that the petitioner, acting with utmost diligence and promptness, submitted its detailed explanation vide letter dated 13.02.2026, clearly and unequivocally stating that the Alternate GAD had been submitted only for reference and technical illustration purposes, and not with any intention to override, amend, or deviate from the stipulated tender specifications. The petitioner categorically undertook that it would 5 execute the work strictly in conformity with the technical parameters prescribed in Annexure ‘N’, including pier width and formation level, and at the quoted lump sum price without any revision or additional financial implication. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that despite the aforesaid categorical clarification and unconditional undertaking dated 13.02.2026, respondent No. 3, in a wholly arbitrary and unjustified manner, rejected the technical bid of the petitioner vide communication dated 24.02.2026, on the alleged ground of deviation. He further submits that the said rejection is ex facie illegal and contrary to the tender conditions, inasmuch as the Petitioner neither sought any relaxation nor introduced any material or financial deviation in its bid. He also submitted that the petitioner, being aggrieved by the arbitrary disqualification, submitted a detailed representation dated 25.02.2026, once again reiterating its unconditional undertaking to execute the work strictly in accordance with the prescribed technical specifications and at the quoted lump sum rate, without any additional cost to the respondents. The petitioner specifically requested reconsideration and reversal of the disqualification. However, it is submitted that respondent No. 3, without properly examining or dealing with the said representation dated 25.02.2026, rejected the request in a mechanical manner vide communication of even date, i.e., 25.02.2026, without assigning any cogent or reasoned justification. The impugned communications dated 24.02.2026 and 25.02.2026 are cryptic, non- speaking, and reflective of complete non-application of mind, as they fail 6 to consider the detailed clarification and binding undertaking furnished by the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that, thereafter, the Petitioner was constrained to issue a legal notice dated 26.02.2026, calling upon the Respondents to withdraw the disqualification, reconsider the Petitioner’s technical bid, and permit its participation in the subsequent stage of financial bid evaluation. However, the respondents failed to take any corrective action. The entire action of the respondents is arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of the principles governing public procurement. The tender conditions having expressly permitted submission of an Alternate GAD, the respondents cannot penalize the petitioner for exercising an option available within the tender framework. The allegation of deviation is misconceived, particularly in light of the petitioner’s clear and unconditional undertaking to adhere strictly to all prescribed specifications. 8. It is also stated by the learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner that even assuming, without admitting, that any discrepancy existed, the same was neither material nor incapable of rectification and stood fully cured by the petitioner’s clarification dated 13.02.2026 and representation dated 25.02.2026. In such circumstances, outright rejection of the petitioner’s bid is wholly disproportionate and reflects an unreasonable and arbitrary exercise of discretion. He further submitted that the alleged discrepancies relating to pier width (3.0 meters vs. 4.0 meters) and formation level (limit of 260 mm) do not affect the eligibility, 7 technical competence, or financial competitiveness of the petitioner. The contract being on a lump sum basis, there is no financial implication whatsoever arising from the said aspects. In the absence of any material prejudice to the tender process, the rejection of the petitioner’s bid is excessive, unjustified, and unsustainable in law. He would submit that the respondents are proceeding to advance the tender process, including the opening of financial bids, without duly considering the petitioner’s representation. If the process is allowed to continue, the present petition would be rendered infructuous, resulting in irreparable loss, denial of fair competition, and serious financial prejudice to the petitioner. The balance of convenience lies in favour of the petitioner, and the interests of justice warrant judicial intervention at this stage. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is most respectfully submitted that the action of the respondents in disqualifying the petitioner vide communications dated 24.02.2026 and 25.02.2026 is arbitrary, unreasonable, non-transparent, and contrary to the settled principles of law governing public contracts, and the same deserves to be set aside by this Court. 10. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that at the very outset, the present writ petition is wholly misconceived, devoid of merit, and liable to be dismissed in limine. The petitioner seeks to challenge a decision taken in the course of technical evaluation of bids, which has been undertaken strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the tender document and the governing framework. It is a settled 8 principle of law that in matters relating to award of contracts and tender evaluation, the scope of judicial review is extremely limited. The Hon’ble Court does not sit as an appellate authority to substitute its own opinion for that of expert technical bodies, particularly when the decision is based on objective criteria and in strict adherence to tender conditions. In the present case, the impugned action is based purely on the petitioner’s failure to fulfill mandatory technical requirements. 11. Learned State counsel further submits that as per the tender conditions, particularly Clause (f) read with Amendment No. 1 (Annexure P/2, pages 19–28 of the petition, especially page 27, Clause 30) and Annexure “N” (including Clause 5.15 and Clause 30), the bidder was required to either submit consent to the Departmental GAD or submit an Alternate GAD strictly in conformity with the prescribed technical parameters. The petitioner, having consciously opted to submit an Alternate GAD, was under a binding obligation to ensure that the same strictly complied with all mandatory specifications. However, the petitioner admittedly failed to meet these requirements. The relevant tender conditions contained in Annexure “M” and “N”, including Clause 5.15, clearly prescribe the technical limits. 12. It is further submitted by the learned State counsel that in response to the legal notice issued by the petitioner, the respondents, vide communication dated 02.03.2026 issued by the Office of the Chief Engineer, PWD Bridge Zone, Raipur, categorically clarified that the Alternate GAD submitted by the petitioner was non-compliant with 9 essential and mandatory tender conditions. It was specifically observed that (i) the petitioner proposed a pier width of 4.0 meters, exceeding the maximum permissible limit of 3.0 meters as prescribed under Annexure “N”, Clause 5.15; and (ii) the formation level was increased by 330 mm, beyond the permissible limit of 260 mm as stipulated under Clause 30 of Annexure “N”. These deviations are not minor or trivial, but are material and fundamental in nature, rendering the petitioner’s bid technically non-responsive and liable for rejection. 13. Learned State counsel further contended that the aforesaid deficiencies were not only duly considered, but were also communicated to the petitioner at earlier stages. The petitioner was specifically put to notice vide communications dated 12.02.2026 (Annexure P/4), 24.02.2026 (Annexure P/6), and 25.02.2026 (Annexure P/8). Therefore, the petitioner cannot contend that the rejection of its bid was arbitrary or without notice. Adequate opportunity was granted, and the petitioner’s response was duly examined before taking the final decision. He also contended that the conditions stipulated in Annexure “M” and “N” of the tender document are mandatory in nature and do not admit of any relaxation or deviation. The tender framework mandates strict adherence to the prescribed technical specifications, and any departure therefrom results in automatic disqualification. This position is further reinforced by NIT Special Condition 9(c) (Annexure P/2, page 22), which clearly provides that all certificates, annexures, and documents must be submitted strictly in the prescribed format at the time of submission of the bid, failing which the bidder shall stand 10 disqualified and its financial bid shall not be opened. The said clause further stipulates that no representation, appeal, or objection shall be entertained in this regard and that the special conditions shall override anything contrary in the tender document. 14. Learned State counsel would submit that the so-called undertakings and clarifications furnished by the petitioner vide letters dated 13.02.2026 (Annexure P/5) and 25.02.2026 (Annexure P/7) are nothing, but post-bid attempts to cure inherent and material defects in the technical bid, which is impermissible under the tender conditions. The bid submission due date was 27.01.2026, and the petitioner had submitted its bid prior thereto. Therefore, any subsequent clarification, undertaking, or modification sought to be introduced after the prescribed deadline is clearly barred under the tender framework, including Special Condition 9(c). He further stated that the petitioner’s contention that the Alternate GAD was merely illustrative or for reference purposes is wholly misconceived and contrary to the express terms of the tender document. The tender conditions do not contemplate submission of any illustrative or non-binding design. Once the petitioner exercised the option of submitting an Alternate GAD, it was incumbent upon it to ensure full compliance with all mandatory specifications. Non- compliance with Annexure “M” and “N”, therefore, rightly resulted in the bid being declared non-responsive. 15. Learned State counsel submits that the allegation of violation of principles of natural justice is equally untenable. The petitioner was 11 issued a communication dated 12.02.2026, pointing out the discrepancies and calling for an explanation. The petitioner submitted its response, which was duly considered. However, as the deviations were fundamental and incapable of rectification post bid submission, the same were not accepted. Thus, there is no violation of principles of natural justice. He further submitted that the work in question pertains to construction of a flyover in a densely developed urban area with limited right of way and significant site constraints. The technical parameters prescribed under Annexure “M” and “N” have been finalized after due consideration of ground realities, including existing structures and public utilities. Any deviation, such as increasing pier width from 3.0 meters to 4.0 meters or altering formation level beyond permissible limits, would necessitate additional land acquisition, shifting of utilities, and demolition of existing structures, leading to substantial cost escalation and delay in execution. Therefore, strict adherence to the prescribed specifications is essential and non-negotiable. 16. Learned counsel, appearing for the State further stated that the rejection of the petitioner’s technical bid is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable but is a direct consequence of the petitioner’s failure to comply with mandatory tender conditions. The decision has been taken in a fair, transparent, and non-discriminatory manner, strictly in accordance with the tender provisions. He also stated that the petitioner, having failed to meet essential technical requirements, has no vested right to seek consideration of its bid or participation in the financial bid stage. The present writ petition is nothing but an attempt to 12 seek relaxation of mandatory conditions through judicial intervention, which is impermissible in law. 17. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, learned State counsel respectfully submits that the present writ petition is wholly devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed at the threshold. The impugned action is strictly in consonance with the tender conditions and based on objective technical evaluation. No case of arbitrariness, mala fide, or violation of any statutory or constitutional provision is made out warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 18. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material available on record. 19. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the rejection of the petitioner’s technical bid vide communications dated 24.02.2026 and 25.02.2026, whereby the petitioner was declared technically non- responsive in the tender process initiated pursuant to e-tender dated 16.12.2025 for construction of a flyover on G.E. Road, Raipur. 20. At the outset, it is well settled that the scope of judicial review in contractual and tender matters is limited. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tata Cellular v. Union of India, reported in (1994) 6 SCC 651, at paragraph 94, has authoritatively held that judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process and not with the merits of the decision itself. The Court does not sit as an appellate authority to examine the correctness of administrative decisions, particularly in matters involving technical evaluation by experts. 13 21. The said principle has been consistently reiterated in Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., reported in (2016) 16 SCC 818, at paragraphs 15–16, wherein it has been held that the employer is the best judge of its requirements and the interpretation of tender conditions must ordinarily be left to the tendering authority unless the decision is found to be arbitrary, mala fide, or perverse. Similarly, in Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2012) 8 SCC 216, at paragraphs 23–24, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that interference in tender matters is warranted only where the process is vitiated by arbitrariness, irrationality, bias, or mala fides. 22. In the present case, the record reveals that as per Clause (f) of the tender document read with Amendment No. 1 and Annexure “N”, Clause 30, a bidder was required either to submit consent to the Departmental GAD or to submit an Alternate GAD strictly in conformity with the prescribed technical parameters. The petitioner consciously opted to submit an Alternate GAD and was, therefore, under an obligation to ensure strict adherence to the mandatory specifications contained in Annexure “M” and “N”. 23. The material on record further indicates that the Alternate GAD submitted by the petitioner was found to be non-compliant with essential technical requirements. In particular, the petitioner proposed a pier width of 4.0 meters, exceeding the prescribed limit of 3.0 meters under Clause 5.15 of Annexure “N”, and increased the formation level by 330 14 mm, beyond the permissible limit of 260 mm under Clause 30. These deviations are not minor or inconsequential but go to the root of the technical design and materially affect the execution parameters of the project. 24. It is also evident that the petitioner was put to notice regarding these discrepancies vide communication dated 12.02.2026, to which the petitioner responded on 13.02.2026. However, the explanation furnished by the petitioner, to the effect that the Alternate GAD was merely illustrative or for reference purposes, cannot be accepted in view of the express terms of the tender document. Once an Alternate GAD was submitted, the same was required to strictly conform to the prescribed technical specifications. 25. The contention of the petitioner that the deviations stood cured by subsequent undertakings and clarifications dated 13.02.2026 and 25.02.2026 is also untenable. In Central Coalfields Ltd. v. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium), reported in (2016) 8 SCC 622, at paragraphs 36–37, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that essential conditions of a tender must be strictly complied with and cannot be relaxed or waived, nor can deficiencies be permitted to be cured after submission of the bid, particularly where such conditions go to the root of the tender. 26. In the present case, the bid submission due date was 27.01.2026, and as per NIT Special Condition 9(c), all documents and specifications were required to be submitted strictly in the prescribed format at the 15 time of submission of the bid, failing which the bidder stood disqualified. The said clause further bars any post-bid representation, modification, or clarification. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to rectify substantive defects in its bid after the prescribed deadline. 27. The plea of violation of principles of natural justice is equally without substance. The petitioner was duly afforded an opportunity to explain the discrepancies vide communication dated 12.02.2026, and its response was considered by the competent authority. The rejection of the explanation, on account of the deviations being fundamental and non-curable, does not render the decision arbitrary. 28. This Court also finds merit in the submission of the respondents that the project in question involves construction in a constrained urban environment, where technical specifications such as pier width and formation levels have been fixed after due expert consideration. Any deviation from the prescribed parameters would have significant implications, including requirement of additional land acquisition, shifting of utilities, and escalation of cost. In such circumstances, strict adherence to tender conditions is essential. 29. In view of the settled legal position and the facts on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the rejection of the petitioner’s technical bid cannot be said to be arbitrary, irrational, or mala fide. The decision is based on objective evaluation of the bid in terms of the tender conditions and does not warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 16 30. The petitioner, having failed to comply with essential technical requirements, cannot claim a vested right to participate further in the tender process. The writ petition, in effect, seeks relaxation of mandatory conditions, which is impermissible in law. 31. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan